City Suspends Burning of Hurricane Sandy Debris In Floyd Bennett Field After Pollution Levels Exceeded Air Quality Standards

Locations of the eight monitors in Floyd Bennet Field in Brooklyn surrounding the air curtain burn device.  The media were denied access to the operation.  Since monitoring began on December 28,  EPA air monitors showed  the 24 hour standard had been violated on four days -  January 9, 28, 29 and February 5.  Air curtain incineration was shut down on February 14th.   

Brooklyn

By Geoffrey Croft

After repeated problems with smoke and high levels of air pollution, New York City has suspended the burning of downed trees and vegetative debris remaining from Hurricane Sandy," a coalition of environmental and health groups said in a statement today.

A federal contractor had been burning the debris in open air burners at Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn.  

Despite objections raised by environmental and public health advocates, the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) granted a variance from its own air pollution regulations last December to allow the burning to take place in so-called "air curtain burners." 

The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) also issued a letter saying that for this operation it would not enforce the state's ban on open burning.  Under the conditions of the city's variance, the burning could have continued through mid-April. 

The group had called on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for overseeing debris management from Hurricane Sandy, to aggressively pursue non-incineration options for the wood waste, which can be chipped and used for mulch and other purposes without emitting harmful pollutants.


On February 1, 2013,  the coalition sent NYC Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Carter Strickland  a letter informing him of the group's "strong opposition to the use of Air Curtain Burners (ACBs) at Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn. 

"As you must be aware, to date there have been two exceedances of the 35 μ/m3 health-based 24-hour NAAQS for fine particle (PM2.5) recorded by the monitors EPA has set up to monitor the impact of the air curtain incinerators in use at Floyd Bennett Field," the letter stated. 

"DEP’s stated justification for granting a Variance in this matter was that the stockpiling of vegetative waste debris at Floyd Bennett Field and elsewhere was creating public safety risks. It is therefore unreasonable for DEP to substitute one set of public safety risks for another by only ordering the shut-down of one ACB during inversions, when the emissions from even one ACB unit may add enough additional exceedances to cause a violation of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. According to the conditions of the Variance, DEP may suspend or revoke the variance at any time for non-compliance. Therefore, DEP had the full authority to stop or suspend the process and failed to do so. "

The letter was signed by the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project, NY Public Interest Research Group, American Lung Association and the Sierra Club – Atlantic Chapter.

"There were some exceedances," an EPA spokesperson confirmed to A Walk In The Park today and explained that the EPA had been conducting PM 2.5 air monitoring at the Floyd Bennett Field site. 

According to the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at the request of New York City, were using two air curtain incinerators at Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn, NY to burn vegetative debris, largely from downed trees, gathered in the cleanup from Hurricane Sandy.

An air curtain incinerator is a self-contained system that reduces wood debris to ash. It is equipped with air blowers that circulate the air to improve combustion and minimize emissions of fine particles.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has eight fine particle monitors operating around the perimeter of Floyd Bennett Field to monitor for potential impacts of the air curtain devices. 

The major concern raised by advocates was that smoke and fine particulate matter from the debris burning would worsen air quality in an area that is already suffering from poor environmental conditions in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

These concerns proved to be well-founded.  According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which set up air monitors around the perimeter of the site, air pollution levels in the vicinity of the burners exceeded health-based national ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) on five separate days between December 28th and February 7th.

In a letter to the DEP dated February 1st, the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project (NYELJP), together with the American Lung Association of the Northeast, the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), and the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, strongly objected to the continued use of the air curtain burners given their demonstrated public health risks.  The groups urged an immediate cessation of burning in favor of an alternative method of waste disposal such as chipping the remaining wood for reuse.

In a separate petition to the DEC, the NYELJP challenged whether the air curtain burners should have been regulated as incinerators, rather than just open fires.  DEC's open fire regulations include a prohibition on the burning of waste products, but the regulations were intended to target "burn barrels" and backyard trash burning, not large-scale debris burning operations like those underway at Floyd Bennett Field.

"The Army Corps, DEC, and DEP all acted in the interest of expedience, without due consideration for public health and safety," said Joel Kupferman, Esq., NYELJP's executive director. 

"Despite the fact that environmental and public health advocates, community members, EPA Region 2 officials and City Council members all raised numerous health concerns about the use of air curtain burners beforehand, these concerns were ignored or overlooked by all other agencies involved until it was too late, and the burning had already caused numerous exceedances of health-based air pollution standards.  We need a proper, public discussion of why the Army Corps, DEC, and DEP all relied on the fact that a "public health emergency"  was declared after Hurricane Sandy to use "emergency" exceptions to air pollution regulations that are designed to protect public health."

"It was obvious from the start that burning massive quantities of wood 24/7 with virtually no pollution control was a bad idea," said Laura Haight, senior environmental associate.  

"These air curtain burners are little more than dumpsters with fans.  The city officials wanted to believe they would work, despite evidence to the contrary, and the Army Corps didn't want to change its practices.  We hope that a lesson has been learned here."

"The combustion of this debris led to high levels of particulate matter, a major lung irritant linked to asthma attacks, heart attacks and even premature death," said Jeff Seyler, CEO of the American Lung Association of the Northeast.  

"We are glad that the city has given up on this misguided plan and that residents downwind can now continue rebuilding from Sandy without this additional air quality concern."

"Burning woody debris has never been an effective or safe way to facilitate storm clean up in NYC," said Roger Downs, Conservation Director of the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter. "We are encouraged that all parties now agree proper processing and reuse of tree limbs and vegetation, in the form of wood chips and mulch, is the best pathway forward to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

The groups had high praise for the EPA for conducting air monitoring on the site and for posting the data on its webpage.  A description and timeline of the burning can be found at:  <http://www.epa.gov/sandy/response.html>

http://www.epa.gov/sandy/response.html.  "EPA's efforts to keep the public informed about the burning operations at Floyd Bennett Field, monitor their impact on air quality, and make all data public stands in stark contrast to the DEP," Kupferman said.  "We've had to send multiple Freedom of Information Act requests to access DEP's monitoring data, and still have not received most of it."

The groups also praised New York City Councilmember James Gennaro, chair of the City Council Environmental Protection Committee, for exercising his oversight responsibility.

Other groups that opposed the burning included Citizens' Environmental Coalition, New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Coalition Against the Rockaway Pipeline (CARP), New York Climate Action Group, and the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH).

Read/View More:

City Burns Debris From Sandy In Brooklyn, Some Residents Voice Concern
CBS - November 28, 2012 - By John Slattery 

Massive tree and limb burn after Sandy
WABC News - November 28, 2012 - By Stacy Sager

Union Fight Over Building New Luxury Hotel And Condos In Brooklyn Bridge Park

Hotel and Motel Trade Council members protest a new luxury hotel and condo tower to be built by Starwood Capital Group and Toll Brothers in Brooklyn Bridge Park because it will likely not be built or run by union workers. 

For years community and park advocates have fought to prevent housing developments from being built inside the park.


Brooklyn

A new luxury hotel and condo tower at the gleaming Brooklyn Bridge Park will likely not be built or run by union workers, according to the New York Daily News.  

The labor organizations representing hotel staffers and construction workers say they have been stonewalled by the developers selected for the controversial Pier 1 complex--Toll Brothers City Living and Starwood Capital Group.

At stake are an estimated 210 permanent jobs and 300 construction jobs at the waterfront park. 

“This is a luxury hotel on prime public land,” said Josh Gold, political director for the hotel trades council.

"We want to make sure that the jobs that are created are good jobs with real benefits that keep New Yorkers in the middle class.”  

Last year, there were seven bids for the project from different developers, according to records. Five of those proposals would likely have included using union workers, union officials said.  Park officials promised to give preference to developers with a good labor history. 

“I think we would be setting a terrible precedent to allow a project like this, which is on public land, to not include really basic job protections for employees who work there on the site,” said City Councilman Steve Levin (D-Greenpoint).  

Brooklyn Bridge Park President Regina Myer said talks with the developer are ongoing.   

Rendering of the Toll Brothers/Starwood Capital Group's controversial 159-apartment, 200-room hotel project  to be built in Brooklyn Bridge Park. 

The city's elected officials refuse to allocate the necessary funds required to maintain the park so the Bloomberg administration launched a funding scheme they say will raise $3.3 million towards the park's annual maintenance budget they claim is a massive $16 million. 

“We've been working with Starwood on this item,” she told the park's board at a Wednesday meeting near Pier 1.

“Starwood is willing to enter negotiations. The issue is timing,” she said, noting the building design has not been finalized. 

Union officials scoffed at that excuse, pointing out that they already have initial labor agreements with the developer at Willets Point and for a potential new soccer stadium in Queens. 

The hotel and condo development are set to open in fall 2015.

Both developers declined to comment. 

At issue is a state law passed in 2009. 

The Public Authority Reform Act requires developers on public land sign a "labor peace" agreement, which typically leads to union workers being hired. Union officials and pols say that law applies to the parks project too. 

Brooklyn Bridge officials insist the law doesn’t apply to the park because of its unique financing situation. The hotel and condo were added to the glitzy new waterfront park with killer views of Manhattan as part of a 2002 agreement with city and state pols as a way to generate cash. 

Maintaining the 85-acre park and restoring its five old piers is expected to cost $16 million annually, with the development projected to provide $3.3 million annually.   

Read More:

New luxury hotel and condo at the gleaming Brooklyn Bridge Park on path

to be built by non-union labor- More than 500 jobs at stake  

New York Daily News -  February 20, 2013  - By Reuven Blau 

Little Girls Forced To Fight In NYC Park - Latest Incident of Violence Against Girls In A Park Posted On YouTube

A sickening video of two girls who appear to be no older than 7 or 8-years-old are forced to fight each other in a city park was posted on YouTube.  In July another sickening video was posted of voilence aganst girls in a city park. In that incident three teen girls were attacked, a 13-year-old girl's nose required surgery.


By Geoffrey Croft

The girls are surrounded by older teenage girls egging them on, laughing and cursing.

The video opens with a little girl wearing a puffy white jacket and pink pants being ordered to strike another girl.

"Go, Just slap her, just slap her."  The girl,  who is repeatedly referred to as "Puna" walks up to the other one who is wearing a dark coat and pants and complies.

She pushes her first and then slaps her across the face. 

"Slap her harder," she is ordered.  She does multiple times. The aggressor then grabs the other girl hair and leads her around violently in a circle and along an asphalt park path.

After she is finally able to break free another person in the group is seen using her cell phone to document the girl crying hysterically.

"Catch her crying" one of the older girls is heard saying.

The girl's tears evokes uproariously laugher from the older girls.

"I don't want to hit her," the girl in the dark jacket is heard saying through tears.

"I'm not playing, I like this little girl."

At the end of heartbreaking 2:35 second video the terrified girl says, "I like the little girl,  I would go to jail for her."  

On July 10th, in an incident also posted on YouTube three teens were girls were viciously attacked after they went swimming at the newly opened McCarren Park Pool. A 13-year-old was first hit from behind and punched in the face, requiring surgery on her nose. 

In a chilling cell phone video recorded by one of the assailants in July, you can see the attacker run after the 13-year-old and punch her in the face from behind, then laugh. (Image: via gothamist)

Just when you think our voyeuristic culture of glorified violence couldn't sink much lower, YouTube is there to reveal new depths, according to gothamist.

 The latest example of misery being manufactured for social media comes to us from an unidentified NYC park, where two little girls are harassed into fighting each other for the cameras. We should warn you that the following video will probably make your blood boil:

It's unclear if the older females forcing the children to fight are parents or older siblings or random teenagers, but the video could be used as evidence by the police or child protective services. In December, two parents in Georgia were charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor after a video appeared to show them egging on their daughter in a fight. Similar incidents have also been caught on camera.

We reached out to the individual who uploaded the video to YouTube, but have not yet heard back. We also forwarded the video to NYC's Administration for Children's Services, and they're currently reviewing it. A spokesperson says that at the very least this video serves as a reminder that anyone who sees what they perceive to be abuse or neglect should call New York's abuse and neglect hotline at 1-800-342-3720.

Read/View More:

GRAPHIC VIDEO: Adults in city park incite prepubescent girls to viciously fight each other

New York Daily News - February 20, 2013 - By Bill Hutchinson And Rocco Parascandola

Video: Little Girls Forced To Fight In NYC Park
gothamist -  February 19, 2013 - By John Del Signore

The making of a bully: Adults encourage young girls to fight in disgusting YouTube video

WPIX - February 20, 2013 -  By Jay Dow

Parks Commissioner Says It's The City's Job To Take Care Of Parks Not The Public

City-Wide

By Geoffrey Croft

The city's new parks commissioner says it's the city's job to take of it's parks. 

This surprising admission comes after years of the Bloomberg administration claiming it can not afford to maintain the city's parks and touting the benefits of private benefactors and the hundreds of so called public-private partnerships and freinds-of-groups it has cultivated.   

 "In terms of disparities,  the City does not have the money to have new parks and fund them," Mayor Bloomberg stated in March 2010 at the opening of Brooklyn Bridge Park when asked to comment on the disparity between the level of maintenance and operation funds of municipally  funded parks and others as a result of private funding deals.

Parks Commissioner Veronica White's comments appeared in a New York Times article on Monday which follows our story from four months ago on the disparity created by private gifts to parks. 

The Times article however failed to mention it was the government's job and not private money that is supposed to take care of city parks.  In a strange turn of events it was the city's parks commissioner no less, who pointed that out. 

"'Still, she said,  the city was not going to make friends groups pay for routine maintenance. “Where we have trusts and alliances,  the goal is not to shift costs, ” Ms. White said. “Parks are paid for by the tax base,  and they should be,” the article stated.  

The Times published the commissioner's quote without pointing out the discrepancy of the administration and the forcing it's citizenry to pay for basic maintenance.  

The Times has repeatedly failed to question this issue and in fact has published numerous articles supporting the last few administrations' increased reliance on these so called public-private partnerships whereby the public is being required to pay extra for basic government services. Services that are traditionally and legally required to be payed for as specified under the City Charter.     

Last year, Central Park received what is believed to be the largest gift ever given to an American park, $100 million, from the hedge fund manager John A. Paulson.

When Frederick J. Kress, who sits on the board of the Flushing Meadows-Corona Park Conservancy, heard about it, he had only one thought: What about us?, according to the New York Times. 

Flushing Meadows-Corona, which has been the setting for two World’s Fairs, is considerably larger than Central Park, at 1,225 acres, compared with 843. Last year, its conservancy attracted $5,000 in donations.

The park’s bicycle and walking paths are cracked and pitted, Mr. Kress said, and its natural areas are overgrown with invasive species. “Central Park is doing pretty well,” said Mr. Kress, who is also president of the Queens Coalition for Parks and Green Spaces, noting that though Mr. Paulson’s home on Fifth Avenue overlooks Central Park, he grew up in Queens. “I’m not saying he owes anyone anything, but how about you give Central Park $98 million and Flushing Meadows-Corona $2 million? That two million would have gone so much further in an underappreciated park.”

Mr. Paulson’s gift was only one of a number of large donations to the city’s parks: $20 million was given to the High Line in late 2011, an additional $10 million to Central Park this month, and $40 million was pledged to build a field house in Brooklyn Bridge Park, though the plan was abandoned. The gifts have put New York’s green spaces on a par with hospitals, universities and cultural institutions as objects of philanthropy.

The largess has delighted city officials, who say it will ensure that New York’s signature parks have the resources to remain pristine while accommodating millions of visitors a year. But the donations have also highlighted the disparity between parks in Manhattan’s high-rent districts and those, like Flushing Meadows-Corona or Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx, that are in less affluent communities. In those parks, conservancies and friends groups must struggle to raise any money at all.

Christina Taylor is the executive director of Friends of Van Cortlandt Park, a nonprofit group devoted to the fourth-largest park in the city. Van Cortlandt, with 1,146 acres, is surrounded by middle- and working-class neighborhoods. A $1 million plan by Ms. Taylor’s group to overhaul the park’s trail system is about 20 percent complete but will soon come to a halt for lack of funds.

“It is frustrating, and it’s hard not to think, ‘Them again?’ ” she said, referring to Central Park. “We work very hard to do what we do. If we get a $50,000 grant, we’re jumping for joy.”

Friends of Morningside Park, a nonprofit group that solicits volunteers and donations for the Harlem park, does not begrudge Central Park its windfall. For one thing, the Central Park Conservancy, the nonprofit group that operates the park for the city, regularly dispatches its maintenance crews to nearby Morningside and a dozen other city parks, in its own act of altruism.

Brad W. Taylor, president of Friends of Morningside Park, has even seen a slight increase in contributions since the fall, when Mr. Paulson’s gift was announced. “Giving to parks has become a cool thing now,” Mr. Taylor said.

His worst fear, he said, is that the infusion of philanthropic dollars will result in less public financing for all parks. “That’s just a recipe for disaster,” he said, “especially in parks that cannot raise that kind of money.” The group has a wish list of modest capital projects that the city has yet to tackle, notably two bluestone staircases that are “falling apart,” as he put it, each requiring $1 million worth of work.

The big gifts have arrived as the total expense budget for parks, which includes maintenance, has fallen to $338 million, from $367 million in 2008. Nonetheless, under Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, $3.9 billion has been invested in new and refurbished parks through the capital budget, and 750 acres of new parkland have been created.

Veronica M. White, the city’s parks commissioner, said the department was committed to financing the entire park system. She defended the sizable gifts, pointing out that Friends of the High Line, under its management agreement with the city, was responsible for that park’s maintenance. The Central Park Conservancy, at the same time, covers 85 percent of the annual operating budget for Central Park, through donations from residents, corporations and foundations.

In addition, both parks draw residents from across the city, and tourists from around the world. “To keep Central Park and the High Line at the level they are with only city money just would not happen,” Ms. White said.

Still, she said, the city was not going to make friends groups pay for routine maintenance. “Where we have trusts and alliances, the goal is not to shift costs,” Ms. White said. “Parks are paid for by the tax base, and they should be.”

The unequal distribution of philanthropy is not particularly surprising, said Linda R. Cox, the parks department’s Bronx River administrator, who also directs the Bronx River Alliance, a nonprofit group. After all, most major philanthropists tend to live near a few parks in the city’s most affluent neighborhoods, she said.

“We can’t kid ourselves that some parks and some projects aren’t going to come to the notice of really wealthy donors more easily than others,” she said. “That’s something that as a city we are going to need to reckon with over time.”

While praising the recent generosity toward parks, Holly M. Leicht, executive director of New Yorkers for Parks, said she hoped that the city could devise ways to somehow share the wealth.

“Even though it’s great that there are individual gifts to individual parks, it’s a park system,” Ms. Leicht said. “That lends itself to having a broad-based fund or thinking creatively about funding.”

Mr. Taylor, of the Morningside Park organization, said the largest gift that the friends group had received in its 32 years was $10,000; a typical year yields about $50,000, which goes toward routine maintenance of the steeply sloping, 30-acre park.

But for many of the city’s parks, raising even $50,000 can seem an impossible dream.

Friends of Wingate Park, in Brooklyn, for example, recently won a grant from the Partnership for Parks, a joint program of the City Parks Foundation and the parks department, to help pay for materials to recruit volunteers and foster group identity. The amount: $800.

Read More:

New York Parks in Less Affluent Areas Lack Big Gifts

New York Times - February 17, 2013 -  By Lisa Foderaro  

Paulson’s $100 Million Park Gift Raises Fairness Question

Bloomberg News - By Henry Goldman & Martin Z. Braun - October 26, 2012

CB 7 Postpones USTA Land Grab Vote - Citing Too Many Unanswered Questions

"I want a dollar value on 30,000 square feet of premium parkland and you didn't give me one." - CB 7 parks chair Kim Ohanian

"I understand you spend all your money across the country but you know something - across the country they don't have to go through what we do when you have your events,"  - CB 7's  Pablo Hernandez

The expansion would utilize an additional acre of public parkland,  remove more than 400 trees,  bring in an additional 80,000 people, and increase traffic in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park which is already severely impacted by the USTA.

Queens

By Geoffrey Croft

Queens Community Board 7's Parks Committee convened forty-eight hours after a lively full-board meeting where more than a dozen members of the public came out to testify in opposition to the USTA's controversial $ 500 million dollar plan to expand again into Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.

The Parks Committee expected the Parks Department and the USTA to come back with concrete financial numbers to be spent on "park improvements," in exchange for being allowed to build on almost an acre of parkland.

That did not happen.

Instead, officials spent a good portion of the night avoiding questions and answering in half-truths.

Queens Community Board 7's parks committee meeting. (Photos: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) Click on images to enlarge.

Board members brought up a host of issues -  the loss of parkland, destruction of trees, increased traffic and pollution, high prices of playing at the National Tennis Center, and the city's lack of commitment to take care of the park among others.  Despite repeated requests from the board the USTA has still refused to put its expansion presentation on-line for all to see.

For a second consecutive CB 7 Parks committee meeting, the USTA's Chief Operating Officer Daniel Zausner had problems accurately remembering prices the National Tennis Center charges the public to play.

The USTA once again failed to provide any evidence that would prohibit them from building the new stadiums on their existing footprint.

The issue of objectivity relating to the creation of the project's EIS was also raised.  The document was created by the government's favored environmental review company, AKRF, paid for by the USTA, and reviewed by the Parks Department - the lead agency charged with ushering this proposal through.

According to the USTA, one of the main rationales behind the proposed park land grab is that it is necessary to remain competitive.  The expansion would allow the tennis group to pay top players more money in order to prevent them from opting out of the US Open in favor of attending to up-and-coming foreign venues/tournaments like Dubai, the United Arab Emirates state located in the Persian Gulf. 

Over many months, the USTA has repeatedly told the public, including the media, that building two new stadiums would help ensure the U.S. Open would not lose  marquee players to other more lucrative foreign markets. 

On Wednesday, though, Mr. Zausner seemed to try and distance himself from these comments. 

"That is a reality for us, that is not the community board's problem," he said ignoring the position this proposal is putting the community in. 

"We will continue to do what's necessary to continue to attract the super stars of the world to play in this tennis tournament but I don't believe the community boards have to concern themselves. That is our problem, not yours."

As he has done in prior meetings, Mr. Zausner tried to minimize the impacts the entire proposed expansion would have by focusing solely on .68 acres - other land was alienated in 1993, but not used, bringing the total land to be built upon now to .98 acres.   

The so called "tear drop" park area, which is included in the total expansion, includes much of the land where the planned removal of more than 400 trees is to take place. 

He described the land they propose to take this time around as a "20-30 feet wide underutilized asphalt roadway" that they will turn into a "landscape buffer and a pathway" which will be "open to the public - six am to midnight eleven months of the year," he said.

"We can't physically replace these two stadium without taking this asphalt strip and turning it into a landscape buffer, "  Mr. Zausner said.

This was a description that at least one board member took exception with.

"You got to remember, their property isn't their property. There's a huge fence that goes around their property so the kids in there have to come from the Passerelle (building entrance) to get in there," said CB 7 board chair Eugene Kelty.  

"It's not like they just walk off the fields and just walk right in on their property. Where the kids have the main part of Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, this area is controlled...they have to come into the entrance by the Passerelle," he said.

 The expansion is a lot more than .68 acres.

Board member Dr. James M. Cervino, a marine biologist, asked numerous questions about the loss of trees and park acreage and potential environmental  issues. At one point he put that to the side and attempted to get an answer on a personal level.

"How do you feel about this? You work for the Parks Department. You're going to give up and lose what you've gone to school for, what you've learned about all your life,"  he asked Joshua Laird. "I would like to know from you, how do you feel about this loss?" 

"The Parks Department is endorsing this project," Mr. Laird replied. "The Parks Department supports this expansion."

"It's sad to hear that. It's sad to hear that," Mr. Cervino replied.

Running A Business On Parkland - Distributing Profits Across the Country

As they make their way through numerous community board meetings, details of the USTA's operation are being revealed. 

The USTA made $ 275 million last year, the vast majority from funds generated at Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.  However, they gave just  $ 2.5 million back to the city as per their license agreement.

What ever money is left over "is redistributed to 17 sections" throughout the country, including places like California and Arizona, according to the USTA's Chief Operating Officer.

"After you take all the expenses of operating the US Open and all the community projects across the country - let's say there is sixty-million dollars - that sixty-million dollars gets spent across the country to grow the sports to make it affordable for kids to participate in programs everywhere in the country not just in the New York area," said Daniel Zausner. "There is no profit left over." 

USTA's Chief Operating Officer was asked if they had planned on increasing funding for programming in the New York area as a result of the additional $ 4-5 million dollars they expect in new revenue as a result of the expansion.  

"In addition to what we are already funding in the New York area - on an annual basis? No," Mr. Zausner responded.

"I understand you spend all your money across the country but you know something - across the country they don't have to go through what we do when you have your events," said CB7 member Pablo Hernandez. 

Destroying Parks to "Save Them" - Let's Make A Deal?

Starved for so long of the resources needed to maintain our public parks, Community Boards have increasingly resorted to the "Let's Make a Deal" mentality in order to vote yes on this types of projects.  

CB 7 Chair Eugene Kelty and 1st Vice Chairperson Chuck Apelian continue to push for extracting funds from the USTA for the park.

They suggested creating capital and maintenance funds specifically for Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, paid for by the USTA.  Mr. Apelian said that the USTA had "opportunity" to become "stewards" of the park.

Council Member Julissa Ferreras's representative also asked about the establishment of such a fund.  

"The point we are saying now is that they are going to finish up their nice hunk of property here…the cost of everything goes up, your fees go up I'm sure your dues go up and so does the cost of operating that park that what is what I think this board would be looking for.  'what are we getting back for the community'  "If we are going to put something over there we would like to see some capital fund for the park and we would also like to see some kind of maintenance fund in place in perpetuity with this lease." 

When asked to provide a specific dollar amount the USTA is committing to spend, they declined, saying the community board will have to wait. The tennis official said they were going to follow the same procedure as in the 90's when they went from 20 - 40 acres. They will come back before the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is completed.

But by then, all of the community boards will already have voted on this proposal, without having any information regarding the dollar value that the Parks Department and USTA attributes to the affected parkland, or the dollar value of the park improvements that USTA would allegedly provide.

The Parks Department highlighted two potential park improvement projects as compensation:  Restoring the park's pathway system including the area around the Meadow Lake which is prone to flooding - doing ecological restoration and building a bathroom on the west end of the Lake. 

"There's no plans for a maintenance fund which I believe is what you are asking for,"  explained Flushing Meadows-Corona Park Administrator Janice Melnick.

"The plan is going to do capital improvements to the park but not a maintenance fund," she said.  

The question of whether or not they would be open to creating such an endowment was met with no response.

"We keep skating around this thing we've got to nail down and I think its important a this point a capital contribution and an expense contribution going forward on this project," said Chuck Apelian.  

"I think the money has to be set aside for both expense on an annual basis and a capital lump sum to fund projects in this park.       

There is an opportunity to put some seven figures or possibly eight figures into an endowment so that we have dollars that Parks wasn't going to get," he continued.   

"Show me the beef. You are going to have to come back with numbers and explain to us if you want any chance of an approval of what's going to be dollars and sense is going to be the benefit to this community.

"I think if any there is any fighting chance that there's going to be support, there has to be qualifications at this point," he said.

"And considering the fact that when we last met my last question to you was, I want a dollar value on 30,000 square feet of premium parkland, and you didn't give me one," said CB 7 parks chair Kim Ohanian.

"Our concern is that I heard what Dan (Zausner) said as far as the money they pay in rent and stuff that it goes into the general fund which that's why we're still upset because that means it doesn't make its way back here so that's why the necessity of the capital fund and maintenance thing is earmarked specifically and only for that park and can't be used in any other park,"  said Eugene Kelty.

"So I just wanted to make that statement to you. That while we think about it that is why we asked you to come back with a number."

Alienation Of Parkland/No Replacement   

Numerous board members were very interested to know why the land the USTA is seeking to add to its current lease was not being replaced. That question was never directly addressed and instead the board received a 'slight on hand' response.

Joshua Laird, Assistant Commissioner for Planning & Parklands admitted that the State legislation "always seek replacement parkland,"  when the city permanently deposes of parkland but he was less forthcoming about when it leases the land. 

He admitted that the project requires state alienation approval but avoided addressing why the land was not being replaced when asked.

He attempted to justify not replacing the land in this instance by making a distinction between the city leasing the land and not disposing of the land.  He tried to make the argument that because the land is being leased instead of being disposed of the land does not need to be replaced.

Janice Melnick - FMCP Administrator (l) Joshua Laird, (c) and USTA's COO Daniel Zausner. 

"There are no regulations or rules or laws on paper that govern how alienation happens," he stated. "It's really based on a legal principle."

"The standards for how compensation occurs, the terms under which it can happen are not governed by any sort of written set of rules," Laird said. 

"In theory the legislature could agree to alienate parkland with no compensation. There's nothing that requires them to seek it. They have in fact for a hundred years or more always required compensation  I can't think of any examples that I know of where that has happened. 

The tradition is that when we are actually selling off parkland we always seek replacement parkland but in instances like this one where the alienation is for a lease hold there have been exceptions, a number of exceptions.  

That sort of precedent is well established where we're not actually selling off parkland or accepting funding for improvements as the compensation," Laird said.  

He cited three examples where the Parks Department received compensation instead of requiring the replacement the parkland, none of which were particularly relevant to the current situation though.

Land under Battery Park was temporarily alienated in order to allow the MTA to expand the subway station for # 1 line in lower Manhattan. 

The only apples to apples lease-to-lease comparison that remotely approached relevancy he cited was the building of Brooklyn Cyclones stadium in Coney Island. Although technically a Parks Department-owned lot, it was not being used for parkland purposes.  Also important to note: that project was not legally challenged which can be a major factor in holding the government accountable in alienation disputes including compensation and replacement issues. 

The "biggest example of all," Mr. Laird said was the Croton Water treatment plant being built under Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx.

In that case the state alienated 14 acres of park land land in order to allow the building of a massive facility underground. The government, including the Parks Department, had first tried to get away without requiring the land be alienated.  They were sued and forced to acquire alienation approval in order to build it when they lost.  

"There the compensation was just funding for park improvements," he said.  The "just funding" came in the form of hundreds of millions dollars that went to Bronx parks throughout the borough for capital projects.

What he failed to specifically mention was that land is being used temporarily to build a "public benefit" water treatment plant under a court mandated order and not for a long-term lease for a private sports corporation.

Laird also failed to bring up the only recent applicable example where the city leased parkland for a sports organization, in all likelihood because in that case the land was required to be replaced. That example however did not escape the memory of a board member who raised the issue. 

In 2005 the city allowed the New York Yankees, the wealthiest sports team in America to seize 25.3 acres of historic parkland in the South Bronx so they could build a new $ 1 billion dollar stadium.  However, unlike the USTA, which has been allowed to take more than 40 acres of public parkland in Flushing Meadows Park which had also previously been used for both active and passive recreation, the elected officials in the Bronx case required the parkland be replaced.

"We would only agree to the (Bronx) deal…. we were only willing to do that if there were a replacement facility," Laird said on a in a 'what is good enough for the Bronx but not for Queens' moment.  

In 1951, the area the USTA currently occupies was parkland used for both active and passive recreation.

The answer why the parkland is not being replaced is pretty simple:  The Bloomberg administration, in concert with Queens city and state elected officials who represent the area, are not requiring the USTA to replace it.  

Parks and USTA officials said they have already lined up State Assembly Member Jeffrion L. Aubry and State Senator Jose Peralta to introduce the alienation bill, which does not require park replacement.  They did not identify the City Council member who will sponsor a Home Rule message that is also required. 

Deja Vu All Over Again

People have brought up the promises they remember the USTA  made in 1993 when they were allowed to double its parkland holdings. They said they would not seek any more incursions into the park.  

"I personally wasn't here (at the time) said Daniel Zausner said in response, "I'm not going to use that as an excuse."

Laird was asked how the Parks Department would guarantee it would not give more parkland to the USTA in the future. 

He was not reassuring.  He replied that nothing would prevent that in the future. The USTA official sitting next to him did not offer that guarantee either. 

Laird said, "the real reality is," that the elected officials and the parks department in the future "could come back to this community with a proposal sometime down the road. 

Laird then offered up a non-credible opinion on future land grabs.  

He said due to USTA's physical location in the park, any new expansion would not be possible from a practical stand point. 

"The USTA has really taken up all the land it can…. That's not going to happen," he said of any new expansion.

"I'm still not hearing some type of outrage that we are going to just  for a private developer to clear cut a forest... for a profit-making developer…. We are taking away an ecosystem. ..You did this already in 1993 when you promised not to take another inch," said Dr. Cervino.
 

He said giving up parkland "goes against what the parks department mission statement really is. I would just like some sort of a moral outrage from the New York City Parks Department."

When is it going to end?" he asked.

Tennis Prices

Board member Pablo Hernandez asked USTA's Chief Operating Officer Daniel Zausner about the hourly rates they charge the public for playing tennis in the park.

"If you or I just decided that we wanted to come out their tomorrow and play on a court during the day I think it's -  the indoor courts are $ 32 dollars the outdoor courts are $ 24 dollars,"  Zausner said.

A few minutes later when it was pointed out that the hourly rates actually go as high as $66 and $ 32 respectively as posted on USTA's website and on flyers available at the National Tennis Center, the USTA official flatly denied it. 

"Not factual,"  Mr. Zausner responded, "But we could certainly bring all the price sheets with us."

At the prior CB 7 parks committee meeting he blamed "the media" for spreading the same inaccurate rate information. 

"We're used to being lied to," a CB 7 board member said after Tuesday's meeting.

What he also didn't mention was that all other outdoor courts on Parks Department property are free for 5 months of the year including the courts nearby in the Flushing Meadows Park this time of the year. The City charges $ 200 for the remaining seven month outdoor season.  

The exorbitant rates they charge has been raised repeatedly. Prices that for some reason USTA's Chief Operating Officer has repeatedly had problems accurately remembering at recent public meetings.

Mr. Hernandez also asked if the budget for the National Tennis Center's was available online. That was not answered.

Permission Needed to Read Statement

Towards the end of the meeting Phil Konigsberg asked if the public would be allowed to address the board.  That request was denied by CB Parks Chair Kim Ohanian.   In a surreal moment he then asked if he could read a statement from a Flushing resident but he had to get permission first.

"I think you should read that first and make that decision madam chair," offered board Chair Eugene Kelty.  

Kim Ohanian skimmed the document. 

"That's not short," she said.

"Go ahead," she said passing the letter back to him, "read fast."

Konigsberg read the letter from a Flushing resident who has lived in the area for the past 47 years who was unable to attend Monday's meeting.

"As a Flushing resident for over 47 years I join my neighbors in their overwhelming oppostion of the proposed USTA expanstion,"  the letter said in part. "Park land by law is parkland forever. No business has a right to take away what belongs to the people.  Yes, park land belongs to the people. Park land is not owned by the Mayor, a city council member nor a state legislature. When elected officials sell their souls and do not work for the public interest it is up to us, the people, to stand up and be heard. The people are shouting, "Leave our parkland alone!"

I am confident that this community board made up of community leaders will reject the USTA expansion proposal. Enough is enough." 

Plantings Benefiting The US Open

Board members also expressed displeasure over the Parks Department using it's extremely limited horticultural resources to beautify the areas around the US Open instead of the USTA footing the bill.

"Yes, there are areas in the park that we beautify before that event (US. Open) and I would like to say before any large event we have in the park," said Janice Melnick, Flushing Meadows-Corona Park Administrator. 

However, when Ms. Melnick was asked to provide any other examples of where they specifically beautify areas before other major events, she was unable to. 

"We do plant before the US Open. We plant a tennis racquet with perennials.  So yes, we do some work in the park to beautify it before the event," she said.

"Maybe we should't have to pay for the flowers, maybe the USTA should pay for the flowers since you are putting the gardener to work… that's less cost that's coming out of the parks budget vs. theirs especially since the racquet represent them," said Eugene Kelty. "We'd like to keep the Parks Department figures down and the USTA figures up." 

As the night wound down the frustration was apparent. 

"And yes, the Parks Department really need to do a better job of paying attention to the largest green space in the largest borough instead of spending so much damn attention to Central Park and Prospect Park," said Parks Chair Kim Ohanian closing the meeting.  "And we are sick and tired of getting short changed.

You guys treat us like crap and we're tired of it. Ok?" she continued. 

"You spend very little money on this park. You have neglected it, you have treated it like garbage and it's not right.  

You don't spend enough money to take care of it. You don't have enough help, and don't spend enough money and you don't treat it right.  

There's no reason why the Fountain of the Planets looks the way that it does. You've neglected it, you've neglected a lot of that park and shame on you." 

"Please be prepared have answers to the questions that were presented to you tonight."

We ask questions we deserve answers. We don't get them they don't get theirs."  

The meeting was adjourned until the first week in March.

There are two other commercial projects currently proposed for Flushing Meadows-Corona Park including  a 1.4 million sq. ft mall and a new stadium for Major League Soccer.

Read More:

USTA Expansion Plan Comes To CB 9

A Walk In The Park - February 14, 2013